Men banned to sit next to children on airline flights
In 2005 airlines such as Air New Zealand and Qantas were found to have a policy that children and teenagers who are unaccompanied by parents or caregivers cannot sit next to men. Air New Zealand spokesman David Jamieson said the company had no intention of reviewing the policy and admitted that it had been in place for many years.British Airways also has the same policy which was revealed in 2001.
Ex Feminist leader of the Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro stated “children’s safety is paramount and she commends the airline for putting thought into how it can keep children safe.” Interestingly, her feminist ideology states that men cannot be trusted with children and they should not be encouraged to have a position of trust around children.
In return a number of men spoke up against the policy including politicians.
Michael Irwin, a former school principal and now senior lecturer at Massey University’s College of Education, says the policy adopted by Air New Zealand and Qantas sent a “misleading message” that men were uncaring when it came to young children.
“It’s saying to society that it’s not men’s role to be involved with their children or any children and that’s ridiculous,” he said.
Mr Irwin said such policies could cause men to feel alienated from schools, childcare centres and nursing, and were also harmful to the wider society, which would miss out on male involvement.
“If a child falls down and hurts themselves. . . is a man supposed to stand around until a woman can be found to help?
“I believe it sends a signal to children: ‘don’t trust a man’.”
The director of the Centre for Public Policy at Massey University, Stuart Birks, said the ban was “a clear case of discrimination with no obvious rational basis”.
It was as “pointless and ridiculous” as discriminating against passengers on grounds of race, religious belief, or appearance, he said.
“Would they have a policy of not seating children next to Maori passengers, or skinheads or Muslims? or only male Maori, skinheads and Muslims?”
The story also featured on TV One Close Up. Susan Wood read out part of an e-mail by MRA Darryl Ward:
“Several months ago, I was sitting on the train on the way home from work. A schoolgirl had been bullied by another girl, and was now sitting in the stairwell crying.
As the father of two daughters, I instinctively wanted to go and comfort her and make sure that she was alright. Looking around the carriage, I could see that many other men, who were obviously fathers, wanted to do the same.
However we knew we could not publicly follow our natural instinct that we had as fathers to protect children.
Much like those few remaining male primary school teachers who are afraid to close their classroom doors, we knew we couldn’t go near her, because of the reprehensible belief of a few that men in general are a danger to children”.
Last year I wrote a complaint to the Human Rights Commission where Air New Zealand came back with the answer that they would only be interested in dealing with me if I had been affected personally on one of their flights. Not much chance of that since I am not a male. The policy doesn’t affect women (yet).
Anyways, at present one man in the UK is suing British Airlines for discrimination while he was on a flight. I hope he wins.
Mr Fischer, a 33-year-old hedge fund manager, became aware of the policy while he was flying from Gatwick with his wife Stephanie, 30.
His wife, who was six months pregnant, had booked a window seat which she thought would be more spacious. Mr Fischer was in the middle seat between her and a 12-year-old boy.
Shortly after all passengers had sat down, having stowed their bags in the overhead lockers, a male steward asked Mr Fischer to change his seat.
Mr Fischer refused, explaining that his wife was pregnant, at which point the steward raised his voice, causing several passengers to turn round in alarm. He warned that the aircraft could not take off unless Mr Fischer obeyed.
Mr Fischer eventually moved seats but felt so humiliated by his treatment that he is taking the airline to court on the grounds of sex discrimination-He is paying all his own legal
If he wins at the hearing next month at Slough County Court, BA will have to change its policy.
He has promised to donate any compensation to the NSPCC.
One of the comments made was from another man, Rigger, from Western Australia, who experienced the same discrimination.
I normally disapprove of people who sue at the drop of a hat for being ‘offended’ but I truly hope that Mirko Fischer wins his case and drags the airline through the mire.
On boarding an internal flight in Australia just before Christmas I was settled into my window seat in a row of 3 seats. The adjacent seats were empty and a family boarded. They were having trouble finding seats together for the children. A steward was about to usher two of the children into the vacant seats next to me, then noticed me sitting there and changed his mind as if he’d realised that he was about to make a ‘mistake’ and horror of horrors seat the children next to A MAN !!!
The irony is that some of the worst cases of child abuse that have occurred in recent months have been committed by women. But that fact doesn’t suit the agenda here.
Wikipedia History is worth a read.
As I understand it this policy is a requirement from ICAO and IATA which are the international regulating bodies for International Airlines.
When my children were minors Air New Zealand had clear instructions that they should never travel alongside a woman as I fearded for their safety in such “unsafe” situations. They were unhappy with my position but abided by it. The children made over 10 flights and I checked everytime and insisted it was recorded in their personal details. From what the children told me they were always alongside other children or an empty seat.
These days flights are much fuller and my kids are older so I don’t get the oppourtunity to push the issue these days.
Comment by [email protected] — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 6:26 am
This is unlawful gender discrimination from a national airline, but who can blame them as CYFS, police and Family Court are spiteful and malicious masters of gender discrimination. Just look at the male suicide rate following seperation. It’s not f ing rocket science. AirNZ is sickening and breaking the law, but just part of the feminist machine that controls New Zealand society. Would a real man pleae stand up, please stand up? What a fucked up country of pc twits! If some hairy fairy airline idiot tried to stop me from sitting next to one of my two daughters then he or she would need to see a doctor real quick. Time to fix this shit out for once and all!
Comment by dad4justice — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 7:59 am
Thumbs up mate. I am a regular international traveller and am being discriminated against in a prejudiced manner every time I travel.
Comment by Scott — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 8:56 am
We just need ONE non-gender-discriminatory airline to emerge as the preferred international airline for men & their families (and men’s money). That’s all that is needed to begin punishing those other bigoted airlines.
I wonder how many parents would choose to send their unaccompanied children of a flight transporting feminazis & their families or a flight transporting fathers & their families?
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 9:00 am
i have 2 teen daughters and i get similar treatment from their friends parents…only 1 of their many friends is allowed to visit at my place…if my kids are at my house and want to see a friend they meet at the x’s…the funny thing about that is 2 men in x’s family have bought the attention of the system when it comes to their untoward behavior to the females of the family…and im the 1 that gets treated like a fucken leper…fuck the whole bullshit system…family court and all the sexist wankers can suck my cock
Comment by ford — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 9:18 am
Responses 2, 4 & 5 are exactly the reason why such discrimanatory policies exist!!!
I’m sorry Peter but to threaten or advocate violence is wrong. Ford your suggestion is gross, if you enjoy fellatio that is fine but to involve your daughters or court professionals is repulsive.
John has asked us all to work together on presenting positive images on this public site.
What is here is just demonstrating wqhy such stereotypes about men exist.
Comment by allan — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 11:59 am
Have you taken time to speak with the parents of your children’s friends. I have not had any problems when I was an “every second weekend dad” for several years. I used the Union of Fathers house in Tauranga and almost every weekend my kids would have a friend sleeping over, for meals etc. Without exception they were all impressed at a house especially for men and their children.
Just before my daughter turned 14 and came to live with me full time I hosted a birthday treat where she and three other girls spent 4 days in Auckland doing rthe tourist thing and staying in a motel.
Getting off the back foot and being pro-active is the answer I suspect. Be bold Ford, make some telephone calls to parents and invite friends to stay each time you enjoy time with your children. Parent well and Persist. That is the way to effect change.
Comment by [email protected] — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 12:17 pm
‘What is here is just demonstrating why such stereotypes about men exist.’
Oh,really Allan….????… And what about the Kiwi Social Engineering Feminists,as in stereotyping all Men and Fathers…To be the most evillest ‘Scrum of the Earth’…..
And you can say what you like Allan,Air New Zealand and Quantus policy is totally Degrading to all decent Men and decent Fathers,it nothing more then the usual same crap, of the Kiwi banshee screaming Feminism social engineering tactics …
And so what about ICAO and IATA policies.????!!!!!!..Its wrong and also morally corrupt…..and there so called policies should be challenged in World Court in the Hague !!!
I have to agree with the statement below ….But it is not ‘Political Correct’ to dare to say this,or even dare to think it, in Feminazi New Zealand….!!!!!!!!!
‘The irony is that some of the worst cases of child abuse that have occurred in recent months have been committed by women. But that fact doesn’t suit the agenda here.’
Oh by the way Gentleman,a Barrister friend of mine suggest I do a Google search on Woman Pedophiles and Woman Rapists…That was a real eye opener, the results will shock you…
But again,its not ‘Political Correct’ with the The Kiwi Feminazis agenda to ever let this fact to be known to general public…..
.’Tongue in Cheek’…I am so glad, and so very humble to liberated by Kiwi style of Social Engineering Feminism …Yeah right..
Kind Regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 3:01 pm
I believe you are unsuitable to represent Fathers or Women or anyone else.
What is this? “When my children were minors Air New Zealand had clear instructions that they should never travel alongside a woman as I fearded for their safety in such “unsafe” situations.”
Trust your fellow humans and have a life!
Comment by tren Christchurch — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 4:31 pm
The truth is men are not aware of this policy,
May be we need to go to airports with fliers and hand them to traveling men.
Fliers could say: As a male Air New Zealand does not trust you and will not seat a child near you. You have been warned.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 4:37 pm
I notice that Pacific Blue is an alternative domestic carrier in NZ and so wrote eo them a few minutes ago asking –
“Does pacific blue have a policy similar to Air NZ that children and teenagers who are unaccompanied by parents or caregivers cannot sit next to men”.
I guess they’ll think I may be a pedeaophile, but await thier response with great interest. IF they give me a straight answer I’ll post it on this thread ASAP.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Allan, I’m disgusted with you.
Whilst I don’t agree with profanity either – unless it’s as a last resort and therefore an act of desperation.
You apparently make NO attempt to reflect back the messages given EMPATHICALLY despite the fact that the senders are obviously hopping mad at the injustice they suffer from.
Instead you simply moralistically pour scorn on the types of words they use.
That’s LOUSY counseling technique.
Take off the PC filter and look past the language and hear the emotions, then you’re empathising!
Also for you to take the moral high ground and state that such behavior demonstrates why such stereotypes about men exist seems hypocritical to me. After all you’re a guy who supervises father’s ‘access’ in an ‘acccess’ centre where fathers are routinely humiliated and has publically stated you don’t care whether these fathers actually deserve going through such or not. THAT seems like it’s definitely promotes an ugly stereotyping of NZ men!!!!
A good snort from the gravy train for you as well.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 5:20 pm
This isn’t a counselling site. It pretends to be a window on how men think. Sensible men do not condone or advocate violence.
I think you are confusing me with Allan@uof when you go one about access centres.
Comment by allan — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 5:47 pm
I was thinking of doing likewise. I’d gathered the phone details of 20 carriers listed here with the intention of ringing them to inquire whether their policies were also as bigoted as Air NZ’s but I’m in Wellington and most of the phone contacts are Auckland numbers. If I did that my phone would be disconnected next month. I might email them using the contact us forms from their websites instead.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Yes, Sorry I was confusing you with Allan at uof.
My apology for that.
However I stand by the statements about lack of empathy.
Also NO ONE said it was a counselling site per se, although you will see a great deal of good online counselling (and some really lousy too) done reading the various threads.
My point is that by not showing empathy but simply patronisingly moralising about choice of words you run the risk of alienating the speaker.
I know. I did it many times when counselling men in NZ prisons until I twigged.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 6:08 pm
I’ve posed the question by email to a dozen or so airlines Does your airline have a policy similar to Air NZ that children and teenagers who are unaccompanied by parents or caregivers cannot sit next to men?
My first positive response was from Thai Airways: Currently we do not have such policy as it is subject to seating availability on the flight. However, if passenger’s parents have such special request, we will try to meet their needs on this matter.
I’m still waiting for a response from the others that I emailed.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 10:21 am
Go Thai Airlines!
I’ve flown with them once and they were great.
Perhaps there are other websites that deal with airline ethics. Must go and have a check.
Comment by noconfidence — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 10:40 am
Air Pacific Limited
At present we don’t have a policy to indicate a child traveling as an UMNR should not be seated next to men however, where 2 or more UMNR’s are traveling, they are made to seat together to ensure the cabin crew are able to quickly identify them during the flight. The cabin crew are trained to ensure UMNR are well looked during the flight.
Cathay Pacific
No – not really. But we do have an area in which we pre-seat unaccompanied minors for ease of access for our Inflight Services Managers and ground staff.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
I reckon you should get off the back foot and start being pro-actively responsible too allan?
After all you’re a guy who supervises father’s ‘access’ in an ‘access’ center where fathers are routinely humiliated and has publicly stated on this website you don’t care whether these fathers actually deserve going through such or not.
To my mind a disgusting and mercenary attitude that definitely promotes an ugly stereotyping of NZ men!!!!
A good snort from the gravy train for you as well.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 5:23 pm
I’ve just called Quantas (NZ. 0800 808 767) who advised me that unaccompanied children are seated separately and screened off from ALL other adults. The operator told me, after checking, that they do not have a policy that prevents unaccompanied children from sitting next to Men but rather they prevent them sitting next to ALL other adults.
BTW: I’m constructing a table that lists all of the airlines that I’ve approached where I’m categorising them according to their policies regarding the seating of unaccompanied children next to Men. I’ll provide a link to this table once I have it properly constructed and uploaded to a site for viewing…. one day soon.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 6:44 pm
I guess I am pendantic when it comes down to the safety of my only son aged 12.
I have compared the risks of him flying him to auckland and back compared to the risks he faces on the street these days.
Does anyone here dare tell me that even if my son was inadvertently placed next to a confirmed peodaphile on a national flight that my son would not scream if such a man touched him? My son would kick and scream and punch if anyone touched him sexually…male or female. I have taught him about stranger danger.
Get real here people. Air NZ seeksonly to protect itself from lawsuits, and Air NZ has done that to the best of its limited ability. My mind says that kids are better protected by males rather than females. Females tend to steal children. But what male can possibly get away with sexually abusing a child on flight and hope to get away with it? We have technological advantages such as miniature cameras that are adaptable to in flight sitautions. We have stewards and stewardesses who are coached to adapt to the potential but remote situation of a child being abused in flight.
Get Real Here…it is discriminatory yes. I would certainly be utterly gutted if any Airline refused to place a child next to me, because i see myself as a a protector of children…..but how does the Airline know that?
All I say here is this…if there is the slightest of doubt, then err on the side of safety.
I just phoned Air NZ because I intend sending my boy to AKL soon, on an unacompanied flight. I was pretty damn relieved at their Policy. I was more concerned at him being left on his own between flights rather than the onboard danger, but Air NZ reassured me that he would nver be left unsupervised.
The fact is my son is far far safer in flight than he is during his 10 minute walk home from school.
sorry…but seating away from men is really, just so so ridiculous, but look at this from the Airline point of view….does it reassure us? Yes it does.
Morris
Comment by Morris — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 6:45 pm
If it reassures us having unaccompanied children prevented from being seated next to Men then it is playing in to our prejudices rather than protecting our children. Children are not safe from some women as they are not safe from some men.
I would accept a policy whereby unaccompanied children were prevented from being seated next to ALL other adults such as Quantas purport to do rather than pandering to societal prejudices and insinuating that Men are the sole perpetrators of the abuse of children.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 7:39 pm
I’ve made the point previously – the continuance of the existing distortions endangers children rather than safeguards them.
If it’s sexual abuse they are concerned with it’s not as cut and dried as decades of propaganda has portrayed.
Female perpetrators are responsible for at least a quarter of child sexual abuse and are likely a third of the perpetrators.
More evidence of our distorted understanding has been published recently in the form of the US Department of Justice’s report on sexual abuse in juvenile facilities…
– More than 10 percent of detained youths reported a sexual victimization incident involving staff members, while less than 3 percent reported incidents involving other youths.
– About 95 percent of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42 percent of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
– Males were more likely than females to report sexual activity with facility staff. An estimated 10.8% of males, compared to 4.7% of females, said they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual activity with staff (table 8).
– Females were more likely than males to report forced sexual activity with other youth. About 9.1% of females and 2.0% of males reported forced sexual activity with another youth at the facility.
Comment by gwallan — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 9:17 pm
Air New Zealand in more strife over sex…
Cougar sex ad lands airline in hot water
Methinks they’re right hypocrites.
Comment by gwallan — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 9:55 pm
I can see the humour in their advertisement. It is a bit sickening that they portray males as the weak prey of Pig dressed up as Ham (or is that Mutton dressed up as Lamb?), and relabeled Cougar. I’m sure that most guys could politely say ‘no thanks’ twice before telling the old sea hag to kiss-off if she persisted. It’s interesting to note that 60 self-confessed Cougars have signed up for their competition already. Some people have no shame and fewer morals!
Air New Zealand would seat unaccompanied children next to these trollops.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 10:34 pm
Well, sorry mate. I was raped by my partner ten years ago and by an aunt at seven. I fail to see any humour in this crap at all. It’s right up there with the “Hot for Teacher” stuff that’s been going on in the US recently.
A predator is a predator regardless of gender.
Hence my reference to hypocrisy.
Comment by gwallan — Mon 18th January 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Right on Bro.
Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 1:06 am
Air New Zealand need to be asked:
Would they allow unaccompanied minors to sit next to a Cougar, who likes her meat fresh?
Comment by John Brett — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 6:51 am
Another airline for MEN to avoid traveling with or investing in.
LAN Airlines (Chile)
We inform you that we have the same policy as the airline you mentioned, if you take the unaccompanied service for children, they can not sit next to men.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 6:52 am
Reply to John Brett…
…….Well said John….Like I said in a previous post do a Google search on Female Predators and Female Rapists and Female Pedophiles…..As Gwallen as already mentioned in one of his posts…..
Last year,I confronted a Kiwi social engineering Feminist on Woman Pedophiles and Woman Rapists ….And her answer shock me….!!!!!
This Charming Kiwi Feminists said….. ‘It was totally different when a Woman has Sex with a Boy….’It done with Love,but when a Man does it,its done for only Sex and for Power only’….
And That was this Kiwi Feminist mindset on this particular subject…….Scary…..Real Scary….
Again ‘Tongue in Cheek’ and ‘Stirring the Pot’…I so happy and contented to Liberated by Kiwi Feminism ‘Hypocrisy’.
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 7:13 am
email to John Blair, General Counsel and Company Secretary…
Comment by gwallan — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 8:22 am
@john…
Are you able to identify this individual? Does she hold any position of authority? Is the discussion viewable anywhere?
Comment by gwallan — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 8:45 am
The only policy that should be is obligation and responsibility from the air line to ensure safety of solo traveling child. That is seat a child on a any freely available seat, and have the staff make sure the child gets safely home.
…and this is hardly a policy but a way of live everywhere anywhere.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Yet another shameful bigot!
Royal Brunei Airline
Yes, we do have the same policy . They are to be seated next to a female.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 2:49 pm
It might reassure you mate but not me
Comment by Paul MacKay — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Reply to Gwallen
……This little heated debate…Was Not….!!!!! I had with this so called Feminist occurred about one year,just a week before Christmas, on a Friday night at my local Cafe in Titirangi township around about 8.30 pm …I was having a nice Dinner with one my Friends outside in the shade ….
The next table to us,outside as well, were three professional looking Ladies in there mid to late Thirties to early Forties….Very attractive Ladies too,might I add and they were very well lubricated on the Red and white Wine…So there tongues were wagging quite freely…
My Friend overhead on what they were talking and put his finger to his mouth and indicted to me to keep quiet and have a Listen to what this Ladies were talking about….
They were boosting quite cheerfully on how many young Men they have slept with and they were laughing on how they were so proud to be known as ‘Cougars’…..
But when I overheard one of the Ladies with the classic Helen Clark style haircut…Mouthing off that she had Sex with with a Sixteen year Old Teenager Boy and have I never forgot her exact words either ‘I broke him in like a Dog’….And I can admit this I completely lost it and did I let fly on my opinion of her,and my words weren’t ‘Subtle’ either …..!!!!
I,as in a loud voice said ….’I am totally disgusted in what I have just overhead and what you were have just said Lady …How would you feel Lady, as in I am 48 year old Man, if I had sex with your 16 year old Teenage Daughter….!!!!!!!”
She went very defensive,but she got very angry too…As she told me ,I shouldn’t have been listening to her ‘private’ discussions with her friends and then she said what I had previously posted…
I said ‘So breaking him in like a Dog,is your definition of a Woman’s Love, is it’….??????!!!!!!!…Again I can admit this…..Yes, I was so furious and very angry …And this would the only time in my Life that I ever felt, that I wanted to Slap a Woman…And very Hard too….!!!!!!
I asked for her full name and her address details,she said why…???….My reply was ‘So I can go down to the Avondale Police Station and lay a complaint against you’….!!!!…Did her jaw hit the ground when she heard that….
I never in my Lifetime saw a group of Ladies take off so fast and quickly disappear in the sunset……Never to be seen again….
I did go to the Avondale Police station the next day , but the Police weren’t even slightly interested…
However When I said….. ‘I bet you,it would be a different story if was a Old ‘Man’ who had Sex with 16 year Old Teenager Girl,then you would act wouldn’t you’…????
The Police went bright red in the faces and couldn’t even look me in the Eye….Enough said, on the ‘Double Standards’ here in New Zealand….
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 3:31 pm
I’ve placed the table depicting Airlines that appear to be bigoted and those that don’t. It’s a work in progress. I’ll pretty it up further as time permits. I’m open to any suggestions from readers.
I’m still waiting for responses for those table rows that are incomplete and will update as responses are received by me from those airlines. If anyone wishes to include further airlines in this table then please feel free to email me with the airline’s web address, question posed and response received back and I’ll add your information too (email me at: [email protected]).
Airline Discrimination Table
cheers
Wayne
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 4:06 pm
……….Well done Wayne…Kudos to you Good Sir,just had a look the web site you recommended on Woman who sexually abuse boys….
As I said before….Woman aren’t so ‘innocent’ after all…!!!
The Kiwi Social Engineering Feminists won’t be happy with you Good Sir……L.O.L….
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Thanks John.
I don’t get paid psychiatrists rates and so I haven’t cared what the Kiwi Social Engineers have thought for quite some time.
I wanted to show the viewer that a female pedophile looks just like a male pedophile, normal on the outside (mostly :p).
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 4:56 pm
At least my protest was effective. What impact have youi had on airline management?
Comment by [email protected] — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Korean Air
Actually Korean Air does not have any restriction for seating unaccompanied minor passenger as Air New Zealand that you mentioned.
Incidentally, I’ve replied to all of the airlines who do not appear to be bigoted with: Excellent, I’m glad to hear that you haven’t succumbed to treating all men in the bigoted manner that Air New Zealand currently does. I’m sure your current policy will be a positive advertisement for you amongst the decent Men who may be seeking an alternative Airline to use.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 5:41 pm
Another bigoted airline to avoid:
Singapore Airlines
Please note that a passenger between 5 and below 17 years old will be considered as an Unaccompanied Minor (UM) if he/she is not accompanied by any adult, guardian or other passenger aged 18 years and above in the same class of travel. Unaccompanied Minors between 5 and below 12 years old need to request for the Special Assistance and Handling, and will not be seated next to any male adults.
Unaccompanied Minors between 12 and below 17 years old may also decline the Special Handling and Assistance after the parent/guardian has signed the ‘UM Assistance and Handling Waiver’ form. However, in that case the minor may be seated next to any passenger.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 8:10 am
Too bad you don’t admit to not even being bothered to check whether the fathers you take for supervised access in an ‘access centre’ actually deserve to be there as you’ve stated on another thread recently at this site.
I’d still love to hear you explain how you think that’s decent behavior and not being a mercenary (a nice little earner for you) who is apparently empowering feminist to further stereotype men as abusive.
Your ‘protest’as you outline it above apparently did diddly squat for fathers in general too. Air NZ’s misandric policy is still in place isn’t it?
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry a few typo errors in my last post.
My post should read like this instead –
Alan,
Too bad you ADMIT on this website recently to not even being bothered to check whether the fathers you take for supervised access in an ‘access centre’ actually deserve to be there.
I’d still love to hear you explain how you think that’s decent behavior and not being a gravy train swilling mercenary (a nice earner for you) who is apparently empowering feminists to further stereotype men as abusive.
Your ‘protest’as you outline it above apparently did diddly squat for fathers in general too. Air NZ’s misandric policy is still in place isn’t it?
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 1:22 pm
today in my local paper in England, a woman was arrested for having sex with a 12 year old boy, she got him drunk, bought him trainers as a bribe !
Of course she will require “treatment” not “punishment”, i wonder if it was a man, psychiatric reports would be required ?
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-breaking-news/2010/01/19/middlesbrough-woman-facing-jail-after-sex-with-12-year-old-boy-84229-25636730/
Comment by martin swash — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 5:34 pm
Some of Allan’s views are a complete disgrace really. The minimum requirement for a representative of men and fathers is that HE SHOULD BE ON THE SIDE OF MEN !
He was the “supervisor” of “access” with my sons. He never believed me that my wife was violent, and i suspect that he sent negative comments about me to the NZ family court. He always showed more interest in the feelings of my charming ex wife than me !
I no longer see my sons. Nobody believed me that she was a violent woman even when i showed them police reports.
Yesterday i read a post on the Internet from one of my sons
“me too i have a bad childhood!! my mum smacks me everyday and it’s THE WORST LIFE a kid could have. EVEN, she’s african and she says “IT’S A TRADITION” WTF?? I hate my life.”
WHAT CAN I DO ?
Comment by martins — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 5:45 pm
Martin,
Your children would love to have contact with you and you know how to contact them. Martin read every item I have sent to the Court before it was sent and offered oppourtunity to comment on the same. Why do you say I never believed you? The issue that was relevant was that the Court found you had been violent and there vwere s60 issues, hence why supervision was required.
Skeptic I recieve about $10 an hour for every hour of supervision I have done. Normally there is much unpaid time before, and after contact. Supervision costs me significantly but I do it as contact between children and there parents is good for the kids.
You have wrongly quoted what I have said and I don’t intend to
Comment by [email protected] — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 6:12 pm
@ Morris… My mind says that kids are better protected by males rather than females…
You are kidding right?
Females tend to steal children… WT_?
Comment by onewomanDV — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 6:57 pm
@ martin… who said…
The minimum requirement for a representative of men and fathers is that HE SHOULD BE ON THE SIDE OF MEN !
All I really can say to you is THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF FATHERS AND MOTHERS SHOULD BE TO BE ONLY ON THE SIDE OF CHILDREN!
Please don’t bother with a counter post… NUFF SAID!
Comment by onewomanDV — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 7:06 pm
More than two thirds of the survivors of child abuse are victims of female abusers. For parental abuse it’s four out of five. These data include sexual abuse.
All sociological research demonstrates that the safest and most productive, in terms of future outcomes, place for any child is with their natural father.
Comment by gwallan — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 7:33 pm
@ onewomanDV
I’d agree with your bold text with the exception of the word ONLY.
I think Martin was describing his opinion of the minimum requirement for a representative of men and fathers rather than the minimum requirement for men and fathers.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 8:34 pm
My point was, was that men expect Allan to be on their side, but he is not at all, he visited my wife several times, for unknown reasons.
YOU CAN BE SURE THAT THE LOCAL WOMEN’S GROUPS WILL BE TOTALLY ON THE SIDE OF THE WOMAN, but this man was NOT on my side.
As for MILLIONS of men worldwide in similar predicaments, the charges of DV , in my case, were by FALSE allegations. These courts are NOT AT ALL interested. They claim to act “in the interests of the child” but now my son is very unhappy.
The court found in favour of a woman who is violent and my son is bearing the brunt of her violence now that I am no longer there ! Of course when you hear your son say bad things about you, it results in severe emotional turmoil. Particularly bad, when NOBODY believes, you including the person who is SUPPOSED to be ON YOUR SIDE.
A man who has bashed his own wife, is NEVER going to believe that women are violent !
And a message for “OneWomanDV”, I hope that you never have to go through what men have to endure in these courts, you cannot even begin to understand.
And a message to Allan, YOU ARE A DISGRACE to men, you have NO right representing us ! ONLY MEN WHO are on men’s side should be in your position, power mad individuals will achieve nothing for men, only for themselves
Comment by martins — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 9:33 pm
And after a divorce, MOST men are NO LONGER FATHERS, they are merely visitors in their kids’ lives. It is the lack of rights for men ACROSS THE BOARD that is the root cause of all this injustice
Comment by martins — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 9:41 pm
martins: It seems like you have been put through the wringer, similar to many people’s experience of the FC. I feel for you.
I don’t know anything about you or your case beyond what you have written here and I may have misunderstood some aspects, but I offer some considerations. It’s important to remember that Allan was not in a position to influence the FC’s processes or decisions. He may well have believed much of what you said but that was almost entirely irrelevant to his role. The FC judge decided things about you and had the power to limit your contact with your children. All Allan could do was to help that contact occur successfully and hopefully set the scene for the contact to increase if at all possible. Perhaps his communication with the children’s mother was an attempt to improve matters for you and your children. That would be consistent with the Allan I know, albeit a limited knowledge.
In his role Allan could not provide the kind of support that the feminist groups provided to the children’s mother. His only choice in his role was to accept that the Court had decided certain matters and try to assist things to progress positively. If Allan confused his role and allowed himself to advocate or agitate on behalf of one party in Court proceedings, he would soon be excluded from giving the kind of assistance he does. And it is vitally important that people supportive of fathers’ issues are involved on the “inside” at some levels in the system.
I am frequently in similar situations. For example, it may be better to discuss with a client the “findings” of a FC judge and to suggest or teach new coping skills rather than to “believe” and fight with the client against the FC, regardless of how unfair or invalid I think those findings may be. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe or support the client.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 20th January 2010 @ 11:16 pm
Hans,
I have read all your posts and i think you are a very wise man !
This man visited my wife several times, as i said i found it very inappropriate. A man who bashes his wife will have problems believing that it is the woman who is the violent one. If you have read the general gist of his posts , he is NOT ON THE SIDE OF MEN, and that agrees with what i found too. Someone who is supposed to be a head figure in the mens/fathers movement MUST ALWAYS BE ON THE SIDE OF MEN and SUPPORT THEM MORALLY like women would do, otherwise i question WHY he is that position.
He never believed that it was my wife who was violent (my son is reaping it now by the sound of it). He never believed hardly anything i said, despite me having papers from police reports etc. NOBODY BELIEVED ME and the person i expected to be on my side ALSO let me down. Yes other fathers will say that he helped them with the legal case, i know, but he seems to me PART OF THE establishment that is seeking to put men down, not someone who is supporting men at times of emotional terrorism. He is the Cardinal Richelieu of the NZ mens’ movement, playing a power game. BUT HE IS MORALLY AND SPIRITUALLY NOT ON THE SIDE OF MEN. I think it is people like him who ARE examples of the Feminist Propanganda Control Wheel that we all have heard about, but MOST men are NOT like that.
When i read the post from my son, yes i did feel a little schadenfruende, i am HUMAN after all. This site is MENZ not fathers ! It is the male that is being persecuted ACROSS the BOARD, not only fathers.
PS EVEN Cardinal Richelieu was guillotined in the end
Comment by martins — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 12:50 am
There is one GLARING difference between you and Allan, everything that you say is supportive of men
Comment by martins — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 12:55 am
Hans, this is very telling. In effect men and advocates on behalf of men have to kowtow. Women and their advocacy groups can ride roughshod over all and sundry and yet we’re constantly told how men, and only men, have power in our society.
What you’ve described is, in essence, the systematic behaviour that feminists ascribe to the patriarchy.
Comment by gwallan — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 1:38 am
Martin,
It is sad that you remain so hurt and wish to lash out at others. If you cannot accept responsibility for your own actions then you are likely to remain hurting. Forgiveness of yourself is a good place to start.
Supervised contact requires contact with both parents, often lawyer for child, sometimes other counsel. That work I do as an individual and it isn’t part of my Union of Fathers work.
Union of Fathers is a parent support group. We work to support children and their parents. Union of Fathers has policy to be on the side of children first and foremost. We believe that children deserve, and do best with, continuing contact with both parents post separation.
Union of Fathers has many years experience and we have learnt that Family law is complex and often we only know part of the situation. Hopefully we are almost always on the side of children, we are often on the side of men sometimes women. Union of Fathers has about 15% of our membership who are women and we certainly advocate for all members.
If you or others wish to join then you can lobby for your view that Union of Fathers should be exclusively on the side of men and no one else. At the moment that is not what our policy is and I would not personally support such a change. If as you claim women’s groups will only support women then it shows how mindless there thinking can be. Union of Fathers tries to be an intelligent, pro-active lobby group.
I hope everything I say is supportive of children. That is the goal I seek to achieve. If it offends you Martin, Skeptic, Kiwi in Space then so be it. I’m here to work for kids and their parents not to win a popularity competition.
Martin you know how to contact your two wonderful boys. They do miss you, you are their dad. They had a birthday the other day, I encourage you to step up and become the father you are capable of being.
Comment by [email protected] — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:13 am
Hi Gwallan,
In the post above Hans was speaking about the role of a supervisor of contact. This is when the Court requires that contact with a parent needs to be supervised normally because of previous violence. The Court is rightly protective of children and often the violence is “alleged” and the allegations have not been tested in Court. I do such supervision as I believe that children benefit from contact with both their parents and if that is the only way for contact to happen then I support that. In most situations any contact is good for the children. A parent can choose to participate or not, no one can force a parent to participate in supervised contact.
In my other role as President of Union of Fathers I try to be an effective advocate for parents, fatherhood and children. Union of Fathers is a more moderate group than some. That is how we position ourselves. If you support our work then join us. If you wish to join other groups who take more radical positions then so be it.
To kowtow is to show respect to others. Union of Fathers is trying to be respectful of other players in Family Law and we do work on the edge of the system. To kowtow is to bow so low that one touches the ground. How low we bow is always a question of balance. Often we just drop our head, and whatever respect we do show is done seeking the best for children and our members who are their parents.
Comment by [email protected] — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:31 am
I think a greater right is for children to enjoy contact with both their parents. You don’t have to share my view Martin, but I think parents have more choices than children do and parents need to be responsible in how they act.
Responseable = able to respond. Adults can show responsibility and need to do so. Children are normally pretty powerless in Family Law. They need adults to step up and focus on their needs more than their own past hurts.
Comment by [email protected] — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:41 am
Alan – Is the useless Union of Fathers collecting signatures for the petition for an inquiry into male suicide following a realtionship breakdown?
No wonder men are discriminated against by a lewd natioanl airline.
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 5:33 am
Dear John (I start off rather badly, don’t I?)
your “protest” obviously hit the exact spot, when you subtly and indirectly introduced the issue of “long porridge”!
I see that you were a “gentleman” and you proceeded without gathering hard evidence, that would be necessary for a prosecution, (or do we call it a persecution, under modern prosecutorial practice!?)
Cellphone with OK camera – take several mugshots, to be sure that one is of good quality…….
DSE MP3 Player 2GB Blue
Product Image
Product Code: A5384
The DSE MP3 player is a portable MP3 and WMA digital audio player with LCD display and integrated voice recorder. Complete with a built-in microphone, it allows you to create voice memos, record lectures/speeches and listen to music while on the move. NZ$ 29 incl GST
(This is just in case your cellphone doesn’t record voice? Anyway, you would probably need the voice recorder to keep recording, even while you made calls or took photos…) Voice recorders don’t work that well, in a crowded, noisy environment, but some hard evidence is better in caught, than none at all.
Capturing the “hard” evidence…. poor boy, if you felt you needed to preserve the evidence in formalin…. for the judge, of course… wink wink.. Women say that keeping it hard is always a problem… Keeping evidence in good condition and protecting it from any possible damage, misuse or corruption, does take a lot of care.
I didn’t see what the hurry was, if she had forgotten her address?
Like many law enforcement authorities, you alluded to prosecution, without bothering to gather and keep the hard evidence first. You don’t sound very real? Really just leaving an open door for them.
You have certainly given sharp pointers for effective protesting.
Identify the victim’s delicate spot, then make good use of it.
Anyway, it’s a bit rich criticising women for double standards, with our history of the last couple of generations or so?
Maybe, women and men aren’t so different, it mainly comes down to opportunity, equal opportunity in fact!
NZers are famous the world over, for oral sex (just talking about it!). Nothing has changed. John, one day you might only be able to talk fondly about “it”!
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 5:41 am
Hi Peter,
Yes we are offering the petition to our members if they wish to sign.
What does this or our views have on the airline matter??
Comment by [email protected] — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 7:10 am
Unlawful male gender discrimination badly affects the self esteem levels of many fathers. AirNZ is not helping matters. Nowadays it’s hip to mock the male species. Go find a cougar but that man can’t sit next to those kids on this airplane said the poofter CEO.
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 7:20 am
And there it is again folks.
Alan’s admission that he undertakes the role of supervisor of father’s forced to see thier kids in a supervision centre – he’s said on another thread that he doesn’t care whether the father deserves to be seeing his kids in such a setting or not.
To my mind that’s not effective advocacy for parent or child.
It merely plays into the hands of feminists who can then gloat about the number of fathers ordered to see thier kids under supervision (the alternative being to not see thier kids at all!!!!!!!)
Think about that for a while.
Here’s a man who gets paid for supervising father’s who’ve been forced to see thier kids in this draconian institution euphemistically called a supervision centre and tries to make out he’s doing good. Not in my book, and no amount of sophistry alluding to ‘in the best interests of the child’ is going to alter that view.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Air NZ’s policy is a disgrace. It sends out the message that men ALL are not to be trusted. I’ve always thought feminism was a mental illness. Its also a gravy train for the court workers, women’s refuge and all other hangers-on. All through time until now the community knew how to respond to abusive men (and women) until the government made it a much bigger job with many more ‘potential’ abusers and clients; most of whom have done nothing wrong at all.
Comment by Larry — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 2:28 pm
This reply is straight out of the Child Support and CYFS book of double speak, yes Allan knows how to be controlled and charming (like my ex wife). Very Clever ! But in reality he is NOT, obviously he is not going to take on board what i have said about power hunger etc.
But at the end of the day , i REPEAT, IF YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING MEN, Y o u S h o u l d B e O n T h e i r S i d e
Comment by martins — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 3:42 pm
I also note your ongoing contact with my ex wife.
Comment by martins — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 3:50 pm
No Martin, not the fathers side but the children’s side and trying to walk that tightrope.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:08 pm
I thought you said your ex wife and children were in Europe, Martin. What contact?
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Sorry Alan if I hurt your feelings. I did no mean to.
You say: As I understand it this policy is a requirement from ICAO and IATA which are the international regulating bodies for International Airlines.
Me say: That doesn’t change the fact that the policy is non-sense applied against any group. Any group. The role of the air agency is to make sure the child gets home safely because it has not adult reasoning yet. So we seat the child in available free space and make sure his/her trip is comfortable.
You say: When my children were minors Air New Zealand had clear instructions that they should never travel alongside a woman as I fearded for their safety in such “unsafe” situations
Me say: What do you have against women? why a person would be ‘unsafe’ to your child because seated with a woman?
I agree that you did something and I have not. I have not because first it is here and now I learned about this policy. If I had to send my child on a plane by himself/herself (if i had to) I would worry if the plane gets safe to destination but not with whom my child will be seated. I trust people. Simple as that.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:38 pm
@ onewomanDV
The requirement is the person is fair and ‘elected’ to be representative
has good judgment, follows common sense. There are situations where fathers are right, others where mums are. Case by case. As for the children they have a 100% right to be with both parents and never with state merchant agencies.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Alan,
I’m disgusted with you.
You reckon you’re on the children’ side.
What complete nonsense!
You’ve apparently got your nose firmly in the NZ feminist gravy trough as you’ve stated that you don’t care whether the fathers you supervise in a centre for parents who’ve been ordered by courts (sic) deserve to be there at all.
Shortsidely you’re not capable of joining the dots together to see the ongoing effects of your actions, so I’m going to spell it out for you and other readers in simple steps.
1. People like Alan recieve fathers from courts who are ordered that they can only see thier kids under the watchful eye of a supervisor in a supervision of child access centre.
2. People like Alan aren’t bothered that many of those fathers are sent to such supervision centres by courts who do so WITHOUT corroborating evidence that the father has committed ANY form of violoence, but merely on the basis of allegations often by spiteful, vindictive women.
3. People like Alan get paid for thier role as supervisor.
4. People like Alan then contribute to the statistics feminist academics in NZ stockpile, whereby the academics can with puffed up indignation that x number of fathers have had to be ordered to undergo supervised access to thier kids as evidence of how abusive men are.
5. People like Alan then find themselves in a society where discrimination against men (misandry) is endemic including such unsavoury outcomes as Air NZ’s anti-male seating policy.
6. People like Alan then play the ‘I’m a champion for children card’ whilst actually contributing to a social environment whereas in fact they’re contributing to the misandric stereotyping of men as abusive patriarchs.
7. People like Alan then get more decent, innocent fathers sent to them by caught judges on mere heresay of women which continues the whole sick cyle over and over again.
8. People like Alan feel so secure in thier positions of power that they don’t give a damn when this is pointed out to them.
9. People like Alan are then in effect collectively creating ANOTHER generation of fatherlessness whereby lack of understanding of men can encourage and facilitate yet more misandry, leading to more unethical supervision in supervision centres, leading to more misandry, leading to ………..fill in your own banks to finish the sentence folks!
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Supervision is humiliation. Unless, unless it is proven beyond doubt that a parent is unsafe for his children.
Currently it takes a woman to visit Woman’s refuge for a man to be served with a without notice protection order. The man may have done absolutely nothing and loves his children. But after the protecion order engineered by women’ refuge he will be forced to do a violence program and see his children with supervision and yet nothing has been proven about him.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Alan, That is exactly because children are powerless in court and at changing things that the only entities that guards their best interests are the PARENTS. Dad and mum. Not the ass_hole judge, social worker, psychatrist or Alan. No the parent is the fittest at looking after the children best interest because designed so by nature or almighty god.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 5:10 pm
I do not agree with you Alan. The raison d’etre of the fathers group should be because fathers are having problems with a devilish system.
If the system was fair and just there will be no fathers groups.
How could you be with the children if you accept that the system can throw a father from his home, out of his children lives and he may have done absolutely nothing? You are trying to portray the system as neutral and it is only there to mediate between differing stances of dad and mum.
No sir. The system intent is to wreck families.
A fathers group is to identify the problems with the system, denounce them, publicize them etc
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 5:19 pm
Hi Tren and Skeptic,
It seems we have different opinions, perspectives and modus operandi. That is Ok by me.
Tren suggests that men’s groups only exist to denounce the system and because the system is unfair and unjust. Many women’s groups exist and by that logic they must also be unhappy with the system
Union of Fathers is a parents group who focus on what is best for children. If you wish to join then you would be welcome. We are a democratic organisation and if you wish to change our policies then you can be heard.
Many do feel supervision is humiliating. It is a matter of how you wish to look at it. My experience is that kids want and enjoy contact with their parents. I attempt to provide as much dignity, understanding and safety as I can for those who use my service. Supervision does not need to be at dedicated centres. It can be in parents own homes and good supervision is not intrusive.
Comment by [email protected] — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Alan says – (My response dissembling more of his nonsense in italics)
“Hi Tren and Skeptic,
It seems we have different opinions, perspectives and modus operandi. That is Ok by me. (Yep, we sure do. You appear to have be showing the same repeated smug ‘I’m OK mate’ attitude you’ve displayed earlier in the thread)
Tren suggests that men’s groups only exist to denounce the system and because the system is unfair and unjust. Many women’s groups exist and by that logic they must also be unhappy with the system (Yep, women’s groups exist because their unhappy with the system, but that’s just obfuscation on your part Alan.)
Union of Fathers is a parents group who focus on what is best for children. (Given your public admission that you don’t care at all whether the men who are sent to you for supervised access to thier children actually deserve to be there or not that statement appears as cynical doublespeak. You damage fathers for your own financial gain and say you do so in the best interests of the kids! Unbelievable twaddle which colludes with a corrupt misandric family law system) If you wish to join then you would be welcome. We are a democratic organisation and if you wish to change our policies then you can be heard.(You aren’t even hearing several of us responding to your comments on this thread now, let therefore display no credibility in saying you’d hear us if we were to join your organization. Further you dismiss the pain and anguish of humiliated fathers who have no place being supervised by you as something that is a matter of how they look at it. The cynical lack of empathy you show towards those fathers who don’t deserve to be anywhere near a supervised access centre indifference of that leaves me breathless and very afraid for both fathers and children who you work with)
Many do feel supervision is humiliating. It is a matter of how you wish to look at it. My experience is that kids want and enjoy contact with their parents. (And here the rubber really hits the road! Just look again at that sentence folks! Do you see ANY reference to the DIGNITY OF FATHERS? Nope. Nil. Nadda. Zero. Just another example of the hollow duplicitous feminist mantra of ‘in the best interests of the child’ whilst screwing men over)I attempt to provide as much dignity, understanding and safety as I can for those who use my service. Supervision does not need to be at dedicated centres. It can be in parents own homes and good supervision is not intrusive.
(Oh so it’s alright then if it’s in some other place then eh? Is it not still humiliating supervision for the undeserved then?)
Alan we’ve clashed several times on these threads, but now in my eyes you’ve reached a new low.
I’m glad we’ve had this discussion though.
I’m confident that despite some of the no doubt good works you do there are others will arrive at the same conclusion I have – to see you as a part of the feminist family law machinery and a very real danger to fathers and kids.
Union of fathers. I don’t think so Alan. More like fracturing of fathers from what I see.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Ok; my rant yet again about appropriate postings. This is a thread about airline discrimination and not about Martins particular situation or of Allan’s support or what services UoF actually provide.
To help you guys I have started a new thread so you can discuss the organisations that provide support for men.
I think the information on airline discrimination has been very interesting and I will certainly be ensuring that others know about the sexiest airlines.
Comment by noconfidence — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 9:22 pm
please see my new topic, created for this purpose.
Comment by noconfidence — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Gwallan. Of course, there is truth in what you say. But openly attacking a powerful system may not always be wise depending on the outcome one seeks. If I am approached by someone to assist, for example, in getting the Court to lift restrictions on contact with the children, then I need to make a judgment call on the best way to provide my client with an appropriate service. In some cases that may be to prepare a second opinion report that might challenge whatever report the Court has relied upon to make its current ruling. In that case I might openly and strongly disagree with some points in the other report, but even then I need to maintain a respectful and careful approach otherwise the Court is likely to sideline me. In other cases I might conclude that the best approach is to work through the concerns held by the other psychologist and/or the Court, argue that some of them no longer apply due to changed circumstances and/or provide education/counselling/skills training that would address the remaining concerns. A report describing this intervention may then help the Court to make the decision my client seeks. My report need not take any position on whether the findings of the Court were ever fair or accurate. In yet other cases I may conclude that the only responsible approach can be to challenge my client’s denial concerning his or her behaviour that may have led to valid concerns. Supporting everything someone says simply because of their gender would be foolish whether that gender is male or female.
If I want to shout and complain about the flaws in the system then it’s important I do that separately, which I do from time to time. Just a few days ago I walked the streets of Wellington with others and a loudhailer challenging the treatment men receive under our family law and in society generally. This was at the launch of the petition calling for an enquiry into male suicide.
Similarly, Allan has to remain careful and appropriate in his role if he wants it to continue. But I know that outside that role he has put in a great deal of time and effort, for example, to prepare submissions supporting fathers’ issues and challenging proposed feminist legislation.
My father worked in the Dutch underground in WWII in occupied Holland, mainly providing vulnerable people with firewood or food against the rules. But there was nothing useful to be gained from taking direct action or speaking out against the Nazis because they had the power and would, for example, simply drag all the children out in a street where any opposition had occurred and shoot them. It’s not always sensible to attack things at a particular time or place, no matter how unjust you might think they are.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 21st January 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Another loser airline:
Emirates Airline
Emirates has a policy that unaccompanied minors should be seated next to a female passenger only.
I’ve updated the Airline Discrimination Table and included the link to the soMENi index page so that it can be more easily found.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 22nd January 2010 @ 5:48 pm
Here is a very interesting development related to Air NZs misandric policy.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 23rd January 2010 @ 12:14 am
I’ve added the email response received from Air Vanuatu to the Airline Discrimination Table.
Air Vanuatu
Our policy for unaccompanied minors traveling to Vanuatu would be the same as Air NZ, having to avoid unaccompanied minors to be seated next to male passengers.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 2nd February 2010 @ 8:35 pm
Good on you for checking this out.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd February 2010 @ 10:33 pm
Aircalin
We do not operate the same policy at Air New Zealand. We look to seat young passenger or Unaccompanied with passenger who can assist them in an emergency.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 3rd February 2010 @ 8:02 am
I had just noticed a video that was posted by Faux News/Fox News and was about to post that link when I realised it is the same story that you’ve posted.
I’ve added British Airways to the Airline Discrimination Table along with the link to that video posted by Fox News.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 8th February 2010 @ 11:49 am
It’s a thumbs-down from me despite their slick talking.
Virgin Blue/Pacific Blue/ Polynesian Blue/ V Australia
Virgin Blue and Pacific Blue takes the safety of all guests very seriously and in the case of unaccompanied minors, we take additional steps to ensure that their flight is safe and trouble free in every respect. This includes seating all unaccompanied minors together, towards the rear of the plane near to Cabin Crew. It is our policy to leave the seat next to unaccompanied minors free where possible. If we are unable to do this due to flight loads, we seat a female passenger in the adjacent seat. In our experience these common sense steps minimise the occurrence of disturbances to all guests during the flight, and in the case of unaccompanied minors, minimise the risks of them being subjected to harm.
Virgin Blue does not consider all male guests to be potentially harmful. The unfortunate reality though is that there have been incidents on our flights where attempts have been made to interfere with unaccompanied minors and overwhelmingly, these attempts have been made by male passengers. So while Virgin Blue treats all of our valued guests fairly and equitably, we remain of the view that our policy is necessary to protect the safety of unaccompanied minors.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Tue 16th February 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Malaysia Airlines operates without the need for misandry as can be evidenced from their response to my inquiry. I’ve added their response to the soMENi Bigoted Airlines table. Incidentally, my name isn’t really Mr Smith :D.
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for reaching out to Malaysia Airlines.
In regards to your enquiry, we would like to inform you that Malaysia Airlines do not have the policy that unaccompanied minor are not seated next to men. However, you may request for assistance and pre-book your seats, and inform the staff that your child is an unaccompanied minor. The cabin crew will also be alerted and they will take extra care of the children. We hope this information helps.
Mr Smith, your strong support and satisfaction are important to us. We thank you for your feedback and we assure you that we will continue in our earnest endeavour to improve and give our customers the service they expect and deserve.
We look forward to welcoming you on board our flights, trusting that you will avail us of the opportunity to serve you better in the future.
Yours Sincerely,
for Malaysia Airlines,
Rozita Abdul Hamid
Customer Relations Department
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 8th March 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Go Malaysia Air!!!!!!! Two thumbs up!
Comment by Scott B — Mon 8th March 2010 @ 6:01 pm
It looks like it is time to put pressure on AirNZ regarding this old chestnut.
The origin of this policy was an IATA ‘good practice’ guideline from the early 2000’s. IATA backed away from their dumb recommendation but both AirNZ and Qantas decided to stick with it.
Virgin had an ‘incident’ last week and it seems the public reaction has been so hot they have decided to do away with the policy.
UPDATE 10 August 2012 : A public backlash has prompted Virgin Australia to announce it will review its policy barring men from sitting beside unaccompanied children on flights.
The company was today widely criticised after a Sydney fireman reported his experience of being asked to swap seats because he was sat beside two unaccompanied boys.
It strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes
After this morning defending its policy, the airline this afternoon announced via Twitter it was reviewing its stance.
Virgin chief Richard Branson … a spokeswoman for Virgin Australia confirmed the policy and said while they didn’t want to offend male passengers, their priority was the safety of children. Photo: Reuters
“We understand the concerns raised around our policy for children travelling alone, a long-standing policy initially based on customer feedback,” @VirginAustralia said.
“In light of recent feedback, we’re now reviewing this policy. Our intention is certainly not to discriminate in any way.”
A Virgin spokeswoman said the policy was shared by Qantas, Jetstar and Air New Zealand.
Earlier today Fairfax Media reported the story of Johnny McGirr, 33, who said he was flying home from Brisbane in April when he took his seat next to two boys he estimated to be aged between eight and 10.
He was assigned the window seat but sat in the aisle seat so the two boys could look out the window.
However, a flight attendant approached him just as passengers were asked to put on their seatbelts, asking him to move.
Mr McGirr said when he asked why, he was told, “Well you can’t sit next to two unaccompanied minors.”
“She said it was the policy and I said, ‘Well, that’s pretty sexist and discriminatory. You can’t just say because I’m a man I can’t sit there,’ and she just apologised and said that was the policy.
“By this stage everyone around me had started looking.”
Mr McGirr said the attendant then asked a fellow female passenger, “Can you please sit in this seat because he is not allowed to sit next to minors.”
“After that I got really embarrassed because she didn’t even explain. I just got up and shook my head a little, trying to get some dignity out of the situation,” he said.
“And that was it. I pretty much sat through the flight getting angrier.”
Mr McGirr pointed out that he works as a fireman in Newtown in Sydney and was trusted in his job to look out for the welfare of children.
“[The attitude of the airline] is ‘we respect you but as soon as you board a Virgin airline you are a potential paedophile’, and that strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Virgin Australia this morning confirmed the policy and said while the airline did not want to offend male passengers, its priority was the safety of children.
“In our experience, most guests thoroughly understand that the welfare of the child is our priority,” she said.
The spokeswoman said staff usually tried to keep the seat empty but, when that was not possible, a woman was seated next to the child.
“Virgin Australia takes the safety of all guests very seriously and, in the case of unaccompanied minors, we take additional steps to ensure their flight is safe and trouble free in every respect.”
Mr McGirr, who wrote to Virgin to complain, said the policy was flawed.
“[It’s] blatant discrimination that just because I’m a male I can’t sit there,” he said.
“They apologised that it happened on the flight and said it shouldn’t have happened then but my issue is not with the mistakes made there; my issue is with the policy in general.
“The majority of sexual assaults are [also] committed by men. Does that mean that we can’t sit next to women? Should we just have a seat by ourselves and that way women and children will be protected?”
Mr McGirr said he understood the children were vulnerable when not with an adult but said that fears about crimes committed by a small minority of people should not rule society.
Mr McGirr said Virgin should either allocate a chaperone for children to sit with them for the entire flight, have staff do regular checks on the children to see if they were all right or ask parents to purchase the seat that is vacant so it is always left empty.
Among other Australian airlines, budget carriers Jetstar and Tiger Airways do not accept unaccompanied minors on their flights, though the two airlines have different definitions of what constitutes a minor.
Qantas, which does allow unaccompanied minors over the age of five to travel on its flights, has not returned calls requesting information on its policy on seating male passengers next to unaccompanied children.
Online outcry
Criticism of the airline swelled online today, with the story attracting more than 700 comments across Fairfax Media news sites by 4pm.
More than 44,000 readers nationwide responded to an online poll asking whether the airline’s policy was fair, with 87 per cent agreeing the rule was ”sexist and suggests all men are potential pedophiles”.
Twitter users were quick to voice their poor opinion of the policy under the hashtag #VirginDiscrimination, while Facebook users also responded with criticism.
One person wrote on Virgin Australia’s Facebook page: ”As a male school teacher, it saddens me that men are turned away from being a positive role model for children, because people have the attitude ‘male = potential molester’.”
Another Facebook user wrote the policy was ”disgracefully discriminatory”, while another user said it was a ”stupid load of nonsense” that insulted half the country’s population.
However, some on Facebook jumped to the airline’s defence, with one mother saying she appreciated the policy.
”I do recall once at check-in the seats being changed around so that my children were not seated beside a man. But it was done very discretely [sic] and you know what, as a mum I was comfortable with the decision,” she wrote.
While Virgin Australia was adamant that it was not alone in implementing such a policy, Qantas has not responded to repeated attempts to clarify its position from Fairfax Media today.
However, the BBC reported Qantas and Air New Zealand had a similar policy in 2005, after a businessman successfully sued British Airways on the grounds of sex discrimination after he was moved away from an unaccompanied child on a flight.
Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/seat-swap-outcry-moves-virgin-to-think-again-20120810-23y7q.html#ixzz23I1vw43X
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 12th August 2012 @ 1:17 pm
Mummy … why won’t any men talk to me anymore?
Mummy … are all men bad?
Mummy … is Father Christmas really a woman?
Mummy … when I grow up I want to be … anything else, but not a man!
Comment by lucht nieuw-Zeeland — Sun 12th August 2012 @ 7:56 pm